Pending disciplinary proceedings do not automatically disqualify an employee from promotion; the sealed cover procedure must be applied to ensure due process.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

1. The applicant in O.A.(EKM) No.909 of 2025 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam (the 'Tribunal' in short), filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , challenging the order dated 01.07.2025, passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. Going by the averments in that original application, the petitioner is currently working as a Junior Superintendent at the Taluk Office, Payyannur, Kannur. He was included in Annexure A1 Select List for promotion to the post of Tahsildar, at Sl. No.79, Rank 6160, in compliance with the statutory provisions of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (KS&SSR), indicating that he met all eligibility criteria and had no disqualification as on the date of selection. Subsequently, a Charge Memo dated 18.03.2025 was issued against the petitioner, alleging certain procedural lapses in the processing of files. On receipt of the said charge memo, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 04.04.2025, denying the allegations and justifying the actions taken in the normal course of administrative duties. However, while the explanation remained pending and without any finding of guilt, the 2^nd respondent issued the promotion order dated 13.06.2025, excluding the petitioner from the final promotion list. This was done solely on the grounds of the pending disciplinary proceedings, without adopting the sealed cover procedure or issuing any reason. The exclusion is arbitrary, premature, and in violation of the principles laid down by the Apex Court, particularly in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman [ AIR 1991 SC 2010 ] which holds that mere pendency of proceedings is not a bar for consideration for promotion. The action also violates the KS&SSR, causing serious prejudice to the petitioner’s career. With these pleadings, the petitioner-applicant approached the Tribunal with the original application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , seeking the following reliefs;

"a) Quash the Annexure A4 proceedings of the 2^nd respondent bearing Order No. E LR/1597/2025-LR(E2) dated 13.06.2025, to the extent it excludes the name of the applicant from the promotion list to the post of Tahsildar, despite his inclusion in Annexure A1 Select List published as per Gazette Notification No. LR/9287/2024-LR(E2) dated 09.01.2025.

b) Declare that the applicant is entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Tahsildar based on his inclusion in Annexure A1 select list dated 09.01.2025, and that the mere pendency of departmental proceedings initiated after the publication of the select list shall not operate as a disqualification.

c) Direct the respondents to forthwith include the name of the applicant in Annexure A4 promotion list to the post of Tahsildar and consider him for promotion provisionally, subject to the outcome of the pending disciplinary proceedings."

3. On 01.07.2025, when the original application came up for consideration, the Tribunal passed the impugned Ext.P2 order dismissing the original application. Paragraphs 3, 4 and also the last paragraph of that order read thus;

"3. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the order of promotion has not stated any reason for excluding the applicant. But Note 3 to Rule 28(b)(1)(7) of Part II KS & SSR provides that officers whose names are included in the select list but who are subsequently placed under suspension or against whom c